“To me it stinks to high heaven,” was the outcry Tuesday of Queen Anne’s County Commissioner David Dunmyer in his attempt to table a controversial Big Box zoning amendment. Dunmyer was trying to buy more time for further public input and to challenge the ‘finding of facts’ contained in the final draft of the law. Dunmyer argued that the ‘finding of facts’ in the amendment, required for any zoning change, were not consistent with Maryland law or the QAC Comprehensive Plan, and that the process was an end-run around citizens.
“I don’t think there is a complete ‘findings of fact’…[and] I don’t think [the findings are] properly comprehensive of the situation,” Dunmyer told the his fellow Commissioners. “I think the public needs to understand the procedure, and the Commissioners need to understand the natural procedures of how this was supposed to take place, and what we’re supposed to be considering.”
Dunmyer made a motion to reject the “findings and decisions” and table the vote on text amendment 11-06, which would eliminate any restrictions on the size and number of retail developments in the QAC for property zoned Suburban Commercial.
At issue with Dunmyer were three litmus tests for zoning changes: Article 66B of the Maryland Annotated Code, QAC Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations known as Chapter 18, and the QAC Comprehensive Plan, which Dunmyer said set mandated guidelines for determining “findings of fact’” when enacting zoning changes.
Section 18 says, “The County Commissioners shall evaluate the proposed amendment on the basis of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the testimony and the other evidence presented at the hearing,” Dunmyer read to the other Commissioners and members of the audience. “The County Commissioners may not approve any amendment unless it finds the amendment is consistent with purposes contained in article 66b of the Annotated Code of Maryland…The County Commissioners shall give specific consideration to…article 66b, the Comprehensive Plan, and Chapter [18]…this is a lot to consider, this is what we’re charged with by law to consider.”
The Planning Commission voted 4-1 against the amendment back in April.
“I think the ‘findings of facts’ that were presented by our [QAC] County Attorney chose to pick just a few specific items related to economic development and did not really consider…everything that was available in Article 66b that we are supposed to abide by…it’s the law of the state,” Dunmyer said.
Dunmyer claimed many of the “12 Visions” of the Land Use section in Article 66b were ignored and should have been given more merit, he read a few sections aloud:
(3) Growth areas: growth is concentrated in existing population and business centers, growth areas adjacent to these centers, or strategically selected new centers.
(4) Community design: compact, mixed–use, walkable design consistent with existing community character and located near available or planned transit options is encouraged to ensure efficient use of land and transportation resources and preservation and enhancement of natural systems, open spaces, recreational areas, and historical, cultural, and archeological resources.
(5) Infrastructure: growth areas have the water resources and infrastructure to accommodate population and business expansion in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally sustainable manner.
(6) Transportation: a well–maintained, multimodal transportation system facilitates the safe, convenient, affordable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services within and between population and business centers.
The Comprehensive Plan is “law,” Dunmyer said. “It specifically lays out several areas that need to be better addressed by our ‘findings of fact’ before we should be voting on this.”
Dunmyer began reading requirements for zoning changes under the Comprehensive Plan for land use and was eventually interrupted by Commissioner Steve Arentz.
“I think we get the gist. My biggest question would be, would our county attorney let us make a straw vote without making sure we could go through with this?” Arentz gestured to QAC County Administrator Gregg A. Todd for an opinion.
“We made a straw vote without seeing a plan with the ‘finding of facts’,” Dunmyer fired back forcefully.
Todd said that a straw vote was legitimate before a finding of fact, and that the QAC Attorney would not change what has been presented in the legislation.
“That’s my challenge,” Dunmyer said. “I don’t think the ‘findings and decisions’ are sufficient…we had a public hearing and there was a rush to judgment to actually try to vote [on July 26] and it was made clear to us that we couldn’t vote on it. Normally we don’t close a public hearing and vote that night, we give a chance for the record to possibly stay open for people to make their voices heard [and to] compile the testimony…none of that occurred this time, and to me it stinks to high heaven to rush to something that quickly on something as important as this — [This is about] the way our county is going to look forever, that’s important to me. This is going to be our legacy, and we just ignored the public input.”
Dunmyer received a round of applause from about 20 QAC citizens wearing “No Big Box” t-shirts.
Arentz responded that QAC can’t continue with business as usual.
“You and I and everyone else here voted for a tax increase of eight cents,” Arentz said. “I’ll go back to that everyday and say this county can’t continue the way we’ve continued. We’re in a hole and things have to change…we’re in $2 million minimum hole next year, if we don’t start opening our county up to some things and looking at what we can do, we’re going to be stuck.”
The day after the meeting Queen Anne’s Conservation Association Executive Director expressed disappointment with the process.
“The sad part about this whole process, apart from the vote itself, was the creative way the Commissioners/Administrator successfully prevented the public from meaningfully participating in the process,” Falstad wrote to the Spy. “As you know, the Commissioners took a ‘straw vote’ during their July 26th meeting, and promptly closed the hearing at that point, without allowing the record to be kept open for two weeks like they’ve done in the past. This deliberate move, whether you agree with the amendment or not, is not in the public interest because it denies the public the opportunity to express their opinion.”
The law is not yet in effect and can be challenged in court up to 45 days after the vote, which could string out the process even longer. Stan Ruddie of Up Against the Wall said there will be a fight ahead, and he has already started a petition drive to recall the vote and/or put the matter to a county-wide referendum. Ruddie said his organization is also preparing for a court battle.
“There are many holes in the procedure according to several legal experts I have spoken about this,” Ruddie wrote to the Spy. “Bottom line is that [Commissioners] Arentz, Phil Dumenil and Dave Olds decided before even opening the Bill for public testimony. They voted on it at the public hearing without even looking or considering the facts or public comments.
.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.